Lots of Secularists have been twitchy about Ron Paul's sponsered "We the People Act" for a while now. And one of those reasons is the possiblity of removing a federal remedy for allegations of state violation of religious freedom. It's not hard to find, and there's plenty of arguments in regards to it.

But seriously, I actually want an depth look at where YOU stand on Ron Paul, not just saying "I believe Ron Paul would say.." or showing us a Youtube clip. I like want to know how far you support States Rights, like if it's okay to have things like sodomy laws and shit which are really only used for hastling homosexuals. Or if women regardless of the current views of the state deserve the right to an Abortion.

Because Ron Paul kinda washes his hands of all that, and I want to know if YOU do.

Ron Paul has never argued to exclude people from public office based on their religion or lack thereof. I would attribute those concerns to a lack of clarity in the wording rather than a nefarious plot to establish state theocracies.

We're not talking state theocracies here Barry, we're talking about Southern-Fried assholes who will attempt to find loopholes in this "lack of clarity in the wording" to create policies that do blur the line between church and state. Not "everybody's going to be forced to attend Church on Sunday" but you can be sure as shit that everything from putting the Ten Commandments in front of court houses, to teaching evolution, and prayer in public schools will become a lot bigger issues, with a lot of chance at abuse.

And I don't think Ron Paul wants that to happen(even if he thinks that there's such a thing as the war on Christmas) I just don't believe he thinks this through at all. Because the libertarian world-view is a world-view of an idealist*, and worst of all an idealist who doesn't understand basic human nature. It's why a lot of the rambling about "States Rights" is frequently so absurd, because quite frankly there's plenty of states who can and WILL do shit that's just utterly repugnant at the best of times.

Quote: Barry Woodward

don't believe sodomy laws are okay. Neither does the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 that they're unconstitutional on June 26, 2003.

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards

Okay, I'm going to get mean on Ron Paul for a second here Barry. But this is kind of a cunty opinion.

Quote: Barry Woodward

I'm not for restricting anyone's rights.

Guess what! Not only is Ron Paul a guy who's quite proud to say he's a "unshakable foe of abortion" but he's for States having the right to decide if abortion is legal or not.

This is bad Barry.

* And cowboys. Like I get this deep feeling that every single one of these guys thinks they happen to be a combination of Yul Brynner, Clint Eastwood, and John Wayne. Though they act about as bright as L.Q. Jones and Strother Martin in the Wild Bunch.

Barry, you're in thrall, you're in love and that's okay. Short of a video of Paul eating babies while wiping his arse on the American flag, I doubt there's a lot that would sway you from your fervent conviction at this point, but I have a couple of questions for you.

As the Daywalker asked earlier, what is it in your own beliefs and worldview that Paul speaks to so deeply? What part of Pauls philosophy inspires you to make the world better - or at least the way you want to see it work - in your own world, day to day? What are you doing to help contribute to Pauls way of thinking in your own life?

My second question is more fundamental, you're obviously in thrall of Pauls ideas, but how pragmatically workable do you see them being? What sort of chance do you see Paul having as far as reaching a position where he can attempt to effect the sort of meaningful changes you'd like to see him make? Do you honestly believe this one man can change a system from the ground up? Do you just hope he asks the right sort of questions you'd like to see asked? Are you just hoping he'll at least be a fly in the ointment to the powers that be? What do you wish to achieve by voting for this man? What do you hope he will achieve? What do you believe he honestly can achieve?

Is your vote simply an announcement that "I'm throwing my lot in with this guy cause I agree with him" or do you honestly believe the man can affect the change you personally wish to see in the world?

Wait a minute, so all the domestic stuff, going back to the Gold Standard etc doesn't do anything for you? It's solely Ron Paul's Foreign Policy positions that won you over? Because if so, the majority of your posts are off point.

I wasn't trying to say I don't care about domestic stuff, I was merely saying his anti-war foreign policy positions appeal deeply to me personally and would be something he'd have direct control over as President. A while back I listed thirty reasons I would vote for him but his gold standard stance wasn't one of them because I'm still researching the complexities of the issue. It bears repeating that he's not advocating a return to the gold standard under current conditions, which he agrees would be disastrous. He advocating for a gold-backed currency to compete alongside Federal Reserve notes.

Spoiler: it won't work, especially in a global economy.

For better or worse, nations need to be able to manipulate their currency is response to various market cycles. There are a few countries right now that don't have that ability...they've been in the news lately: Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.

Sort of. For a shining example, one only has to look at Japan. 220%* debt to GDP ratio last year compared to roughly 70% for Italy. Japan is paying roughly 1% on their 10 year notes, compared to 8% for Italy's 2 year.

You advocate returning to the gold standard. I suggested that being able to manipulate your currency provides a country with an enviable degree of flexibility regarding responses to crises. Yes, Japan has gone (and continues to go through) a "Lost Decade" but answer me this: at this point in time, would you rather be Greece or Japan? Why is it that Japan has literally 4 times more debt to GDP than Spain yet they can consistently borrow at 2% over 10 years and remains the world's third largest economy?

Alright, what about Greece vs Switzerland? Australia? The UK is another shining example of how the aforementioned flexibility allows you to navigate through periodic crises such as what were going through now.

Ron Paul, to me, seems like a good canidate to those who are uniformed, and love to spout out anti-government rhetoric. I read something where he thinks that every road in the country should be privately owned and maintained. Funds to come from advertising and tolls. Imagine that folks, a US where you have to go through 20 street tolls to go to the grocery store.

I always wonder at guys like Paul who think that the Federal Gov't is bloated, inefficient, and yet somehow the State level Gov't and Local Gov'ts are these bastions of competency and efficiency.

Well the argument is that people have more control over what happens at the State and Local level. So if a program isn't working it's easier to reform or end. Problem is most people are even less informed about local and state politics than they are about national politics.

Well the argument is that people have more control over what happens at the State and Local level. So if a program isn't working it's easier to reform or end. Problem is most people are even less informed about local and state politics than they are about national politics.

Well the argument is that people have more control over what happens at the State and Local level. So if a program isn't working it's easier to reform or end. Problem is most people are even less informed about local and state politics than they are about national politics.

Yea, and its that reasoning that makes me want age limits on public service. If you still yearn for a time when you only knew the people on your block, and the next state might have well been china for all you knew, then its time to stop making decisions about the country as a whole.

Forgot to add that, at least in theory, one can affect meaningful change at the local level. In California there was a small town (forget the name) that decided to simply not allow any major chains to operate businesses there. They wanted to support local entrepreneurs locally sourced food. It's an extreme example, but it shows just how powerful a local community can be.

Absolutely. I actually just bought a membership in my Alberta party. Its a nice centrist alternative to the Torys and the Liberals. I'm excited to get involved in something tangible for a change, instead of just yelling at my TV about the idiocy of the world and weathering the sighs i get from my girlfriend.

Isn't Dennis Kucinich all the good parts of Ron Paul, without the bit about turning the U.S. into Somalia and removing any obstruction to corporate control over every facet of our lives? Why not vote for Kucinich? Fuck, I might write in a protest vote for Kucinich.

The most interesting thing about Ron Paul is how he illustrates how the media likes to pick winners and form a narrative. The guy has consistently been at 3rd place and in the latest poll in Iowa he's one point behind Newt in taking the Caucus. I wouldn't vote for the guy but you gotta respect his grass roots support system.

Attempting to debunk one comment in an old newsletter published under your name is understandable.....but when there are multiple instances of 'questionable' comments spread out over a large time frame...deniability becomes implausible.

Quote:

The Company Ron Paul Keeps

The Republican Jewish Coalition announced this month that congressman Ron Paul would not be among the six guests invited to participate in its Republican Presidential Candidates Forum. “He’s just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the RJC, adding that the group “rejects his misguided and extreme views.”

Paul’s exclusion caused an uproar, with critics alleging that his stand on Israel had earned the RJC’s ire; an absolutist libertarian, Paul opposes foreign aid to all countries, including the Jewish state. “This seems to me more of an attempt to draw boundaries around acceptable policy discourse than any active concern that President Dr. Ron Paul would be actively anti-Israel or anti-Semitic,” wrote Reason editor Matt Welch. Chris McGreal of the Guardian reported that Paul “was barred because of his views on Israel.” Even Seth Lipsky, editor of the New York Sun and a valiant defender of Israel (and friend and mentor of this writer), opined, “The whole idea of an organization of Jewish Republicans worrying about the mainstream strikes me as a bit contradictory.”

While Paul’s views on Israel certainly place him outside the American, never mind Republican, mainstream, there is an even more elementary reason the RJC was right to exclude him from its event. It is Paul’s lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations.

In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paul’s name: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,” read a typical article from the June 1992 “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War,” and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” had also “seduced underage girls and boys.” The man who would later proclaim King a “hero” attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”

Originally Posted by Barry Woodward
There were as many as 14 newsletters that bore his at one time each with different content. There were writers and editors that used his name to put out some unsavory stuff but it's clear he didn't write them and all of his comments before, during and since have refuted any racist statements.

....and yet, his name remained on the newsletters.

RP can say "oh, I didn't know these terrible things were being printed in a newsletter with my name on it" til the cows come home...seeing as his name was used, he should have been responsible enough to be aware of the content.